124 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

I'm with Judo on my conflicted feelings about how to determine an "overrating." While only the most hardcore fanboys will even be likely to read this (and I should, therefore, base my choice on our collective opinions), I cannot ignore the populace of casual fans (on whom EON makes their bread and butter).
YOLT is less about the cool spy factor or thrilling cold war espionage, and more about the kitchen sink. For its place in the fanboy Bondian pantheon and its largely self-parodical place in pop culture, I vote YOLT as the most overrated Bond film.

I try to imagine how YOLT would have fared with the general public if - all other things being equal - Sean Connery's presence as James Bond was replaced an equally dull/out-of-sorts-looking George Lazenby.

If the public were forced to see the film on its own merits as opposed to seeing it as "the next Sean Connery James Bond adventure", I wonder if it might have been shredded to bits (even if the next actor were to play the part with the quality and energy it deserves). Had someone of Lazenby's skill set taken SC's place, how quickly those apologetic tones regarding Connery's dialed in performance (yeah, Connery would rather be somewhere else, but hey... it's Connery) would turn to burning at the stake.

[R. Dittmar]

I'm with Judo on my conflicted feelings about how to determine an "overrating." While only the most hardcore fanboys will even be likely to read this (and I should, therefore, base my choice on our collective opinions), I cannot ignore the populace of casual fans (on whom EON makes their bread and butter).
YOLT is less about the cool spy factor or thrilling cold war espionage, and more about the kitchen sink. For its place in the fanboy Bondian pantheon and its largely self-parodical place in pop culture, I vote YOLT as the most overrated Bond film.

I try to imagine how YOLT would have fared with the general public if - all other things being equal - Sean Connery's presence as James Bond was replaced an equally dull/out-of-sorts-looking George Lazenby.

If the public were forced to see the film on its own merits as opposed to seeing it as "the next Sean Connery James Bond adventure", I wonder if it might have been shredded to bits (even if the next actor were to play the part with the quality and energy it deserves). Had someone of Lazenby's skill set taken SC's place, how quickly those apologetic tones regarding Connery's dialed in performance (yeah, Connery would rather be somewhere else, but hey... it's Connery) would turn to burning at the stake.

I was actually thinking of YOLT while watching Skyfall of all things, and I have to disagree with this for the following reason. The star of YOLT wasn't really Connery. It was Japan. We've watched Bond and everyone else in movies jet all over the world and culture's become so homogenized in the subsequent 45+ years so it's easy to miss the appeal of these exotic locations today. At the time though Japan was only about 20 years away from the end of WWII and it was still a place that must have been fairly alien to Westerners. Fleming's book openly makes Japan out to be some allegorical fairy-tale land in telling his story. While Japan had Westernized a lot by the time they made YOLT, I think a lot of the movie’s appeal when released was the unique setting.

I was thinking about this when watching Skyfall during the scene in which Bond visits Shanghai. It’s a gorgeous city and beautifully filmed, but could you have really known where that was set were it not for the Chinese road signs? That office tower Bond went to reminded me of the glass Comcast building here in Philadelphia! There’s simply no place to go today that would have the exotic air that Japan must have had in the 60’s.

[Turn]

I'm with Judo on my conflicted feelings about how to determine an "overrating." While only the most hardcore fanboys will even be likely to read this (and I should, therefore, base my choice on our collective opinions), I cannot ignore the populace of casual fans (on whom EON makes their bread and butter).
YOLT is less about the cool spy factor or thrilling cold war espionage, and more about the kitchen sink. For its place in the fanboy Bondian pantheon and its largely self-parodical place in pop culture, I vote YOLT as the most overrated Bond film.

I try to imagine how YOLT would have fared with the general public if - all other things being equal - Sean Connery's presence as James Bond was replaced an equally dull/out-of-sorts-looking George Lazenby.

If the public were forced to see the film on its own merits as opposed to seeing it as "the next Sean Connery James Bond adventure", I wonder if it might have been shredded to bits (even if the next actor were to play the part with the quality and energy it deserves). Had someone of Lazenby's skill set taken SC's place, how quickly those apologetic tones regarding Connery's dialed in performance (yeah, Connery would rather be somewhere else, but hey... it's Connery) would turn to burning at the stake.

I was actually thinking of YOLT while watching Skyfall of all things, and I have to disagree with this for the following reason. The star of YOLT wasn't really Connery. It was Japan. We've watched Bond and everyone else in movies jet all over the world and culture's become so homogenized in the subsequent 45+ years so it's easy to miss the appeal of these exotic locations today. At the time though Japan was only about 20 years away from the end of WWII and it was still a place that must have been fairly alien to Westerners. Fleming's book openly makes Japan out to be some allegorical fairy-tale land in telling his story. While Japan had Westernized a lot by the time they made YOLT, I think a lot of the movie’s appeal when released was the unique setting.

I was thinking about this when watching Skyfall during the scene in which Bond visits Shanghai. It’s a gorgeous city and beautifully filmed, but could you have really known where that was set were it not for the Chinese road signs? That office tower Bond went to reminded me of the glass Comcast building here in Philadelphia! There’s simply no place to go today that would have the exotic air that Japan must have had in the 60’s.

Good observations. I've always said Japan in YOLT was like some other world, and it's no problem that Bond spends the entire film there instead of globehopping.

The exotic location thing in the series doesn't have nearly the appeal it once did, especially since travel is so much more common than it was during the series early years. But it seems even the Mission Impossible films have made better use of visiiting different countries than the Bonds have. In 50 years there's a whole continent the character has never visited.

I'm a bit surprised nobody has yet criticized Skyfall for being mostly set in London.

[Safari Suit]

I might have, if I could have been bothered to write a review.

[tdalton]

I'm a bit surprised nobody has yet criticized Skyfall for being mostly set in London.

It does raise the question as to whether Bond, as a member of MI6, would have jurisdiction to go after Silva once he enters the UK. I know that this was a plot point raised in Deaver's CARTE BLANCHE (not related to SKYFALL, but the jurisdiction issue), but I've never been particularly sure as to how all that works. It, along with the London setting, are not anywhere near the top of the list of SKYFALL's problems, and I hadn't even considered the setting issue until I'd seen it raised here.

[The Shark]

I'm a bit surprised nobody has yet criticized Skyfall for being mostly set in London.

It does raise the question as to whether Bond, as a member of MI6, would have jurisdiction to go after Silva once he enters the UK. I know that this was a plot point raised in Deaver's CARTE BLANCHE.

The idea originates from Fleming's MOONRAKER.

[tdalton]

I'm a bit surprised nobody has yet criticized Skyfall for being mostly set in London.

It does raise the question as to whether Bond, as a member of MI6, would have jurisdiction to go after Silva once he enters the UK. I know that this was a plot point raised in Deaver's CARTE BLANCHE.

The idea originates from Fleming's MOONRAKER.

Fair enough. It's been a while since I've read MOONRAKER, so a lot about it doesn't immediately come to mind.

That whole issue isn't really one of my problems with SKYFALL anyway.

[Judo chop]

 

 

 

 

Good observations. I've always said Japan in YOLT was like some other world, and it's no problem that Bond spends the entire film there instead of globehopping.

The exotic location thing in the series doesn't have nearly the appeal it once did, especially since travel is so much more common than it was during the series early years. But it seems even the Mission Impossible films have made better use of visiiting different countries than the Bonds have. In 50 years there's a whole continent the character has never visited.

I'm a bit surprised nobody has yet criticized Skyfall for being mostly set in London.

 

I'm not surprised.  I'm surprised that you are surprised, though I'm not sure exactly where you think those criticisms would come from.

 

I'm not sure it is "mostly set in London".  Meaning, I'd guess more than half the running time takes place somewhere else, though I could be wrong about that.   If I am, I'd bet it's pretty darn close to even, London vs. non-London.  It's a well-distributed trot of a film, isn't it?   I wouldn't think SKYFALL is even in the top 5 of the least world-travelly Bond films.

 

Now of course London is the most frequented spot of the bunch, but then something has to be, so...  I don't see how there'd be any basis for that criticism.

 

On the other hand, if it's London itself that is the problem that you expected others to have [ie.  London is too obvious and boring a locale] then that's a different matter.  But Mendes and co. were pretty open about their decision to make SKYFALL a 'British' Bond, so complain all they want, but they shouldn't act surprised.  Not to mention that MI6 plays more of a veritable character in this film than ever before, so it only makes sense that London would be heavily featured.

[hilly]

Dr No. Whilst we are all grateful that it exists, it is nevertheless rather corny, the music is melodramatic, it has aged badly ( you would think that it was made about 20years before FRWL), hammily acted in places ( You RATS!) and just a bit dull...

[Judo chop]

Dr No. Whilst we are all grateful that it exists, it is nevertheless rather corny, the music is melodramatic, it has aged badly ( you would think that it was made about 20years before FRWL), hammily acted in places ( You RATS!) and just a bit dull...

I don't see it. 

 

I see a film that had budget restraints (it doubled from DN to FRWL) but I think the quality is still there given what they had to work with.  Adams' sets alone keep it afloat in the top 12 Bond films.  Even if it were generally ranked as #1 (an overreach for sure) I'm still not sure it would be the MOST overrated Bond film.  By my definition of ‘overrated’, anyway.

[Turn]

 

 

 

 

 

Good observations. I've always said Japan in YOLT was like some other world, and it's no problem that Bond spends the entire film there instead of globehopping.

The exotic location thing in the series doesn't have nearly the appeal it once did, especially since travel is so much more common than it was during the series early years. But it seems even the Mission Impossible films have made better use of visiiting different countries than the Bonds have. In 50 years there's a whole continent the character has never visited.

I'm a bit surprised nobody has yet criticized Skyfall for being mostly set in London.

 

I'm not surprised.  I'm surprised that you are surprised, though I'm not sure exactly where you think those criticisms would come from.

 

I'm not sure it is "mostly set in London".  Meaning, I'd guess more than half the running time takes place somewhere else, though I could be wrong about that.   If I am, I'd bet it's pretty darn close to even, London vs. non-London.  It's a well-distributed trot of a film, isn't it?   I wouldn't think SKYFALL is even in the top 5 of the least world-travelly Bond films.

 

Now of course London is the most frequented spot of the bunch, but then something has to be, so...  I don't see how there'd be any basis for that criticism.

 

On the other hand, if it's London itself that is the problem that you expected others to have [ie.  London is too obvious and boring a locale] then that's a different matter.  But Mendes and co. were pretty open about their decision to make SKYFALL a 'British' Bond, so complain all they want, but they shouldn't act surprised.  Not to mention that MI6 plays more of a veritable character in this film than ever before, so it only makes sense that London would be heavily featured.

 

Well, if nothing else I've given a new twist to the discussion.

 

I made the comment in a cheeky manner as I personally have no problem whatsoever with any of the locations in Skyfall. London just seems to be THE location I associate it with on first thought.

 

It just seems people will come up with every excuse possible to complain about a film, and given that part of human nature, I thought I'd see some comment that London isn't exotic enough for a Bond movie as it's just supposed to be a starting point for a film or from those who live there or near it. I know as Americans many fans complain several of the Bond films with American settings being some of the least interesting in the series.

 

I wouldn't know about the announcement of this being a more British Bond or what that would entail anyway, especially since I went in trying to stay spoiler-free, so I was actually surprised it was used as much as it was as a setting. London actually does seem exotic to somebodylike me, whose never left the North American continent.

[FOX MULDER]

Thing is: Goldfinger can be overrated and STILL be considered an amazing film. That's pretty much how I feel about it. Overrated, maybe. But only in the way The Beatles were overrated - I still love them!

 

I feel Casino Royale (2006) is slightly overrated. The previous few films had been SO bad, CR felt like Casablanca in comparison. Still, a great film in any case.

 

I can tell you what's underrated - TMWTGG. Criminally underrated.

[hilly]

 

Dr No. Whilst we are all grateful that it exists, it is nevertheless rather corny, the music is melodramatic, it has aged badly ( you would think that it was made about 20years before FRWL), hammily acted in places ( You RATS!) and just a bit dull...

I don't see it. 
 
I see a film that had budget restraints (it doubled from DN to FRWL) but I think the quality is still there given what they had to work with.  Adams' sets alone keep it afloat in the top 12 Bond films.  Even if it were generally ranked as #1 (an overreach for sure) I'm still not sure it would be the MOST overrated Bond film.  By my definition of ‘overrated’, anyway.
 
I just think that the majority of Dr No's high regard rests on it being first. I take your point about Ken Adam's sets but I think that, had it happened later in the series, it's ranking would have been far lower 

[Judo chop]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good observations. I've always said Japan in YOLT was like some other world, and it's no problem that Bond spends the entire film there instead of globehopping.

The exotic location thing in the series doesn't have nearly the appeal it once did, especially since travel is so much more common than it was during the series early years. But it seems even the Mission Impossible films have made better use of visiiting different countries than the Bonds have. In 50 years there's a whole continent the character has never visited.

I'm a bit surprised nobody has yet criticized Skyfall for being mostly set in London.

 

I'm not surprised.  I'm surprised that you are surprised, though I'm not sure exactly where you think those criticisms would come from.

 

I'm not sure it is "mostly set in London".  Meaning, I'd guess more than half the running time takes place somewhere else, though I could be wrong about that.   If I am, I'd bet it's pretty darn close to even, London vs. non-London.  It's a well-distributed trot of a film, isn't it?   I wouldn't think SKYFALL is even in the top 5 of the least world-travelly Bond films.

 

Now of course London is the most frequented spot of the bunch, but then something has to be, so...  I don't see how there'd be any basis for that criticism.

 

On the other hand, if it's London itself that is the problem that you expected others to have [ie.  London is too obvious and boring a locale] then that's a different matter.  But Mendes and co. were pretty open about their decision to make SKYFALL a 'British' Bond, so complain all they want, but they shouldn't act surprised.  Not to mention that MI6 plays more of a veritable character in this film than ever before, so it only makes sense that London would be heavily featured.

 

Well, if nothing else I've given a new twist to the discussion.

 

I made the comment in a cheeky manner as I personally have no problem whatsoever with any of the locations in Skyfall. London just seems to be THE location I associate it with on first thought.

 

It just seems people will come up with every excuse possible to complain about a film, and given that part of human nature, I thought I'd see some comment that London isn't exotic enough for a Bond movie as it's just supposed to be a starting point for a film or from those who live there or near it. I know as Americans many fans complain several of the Bond films with American settings being some of the least interesting in the series.

 

I wouldn't know about the announcement of this being a more British Bond or what that would entail anyway, especially since I went in trying to stay spoiler-free, so I was actually surprised it was used as much as it was as a setting. London actually does seem exotic to somebodylike me, whose never left the North American continent.

 

 

Sure.  I wasn't trying to shoot you down.  I just wanted to know where you thought those criticisms would come from.  I think it's possible that folks would complain that London isn't exotic enough.  Just not likely.  Folks in the states, by and large, probably see anything in Europe as at least somewhat exotic as you (and I) do, and I think folks in England feel pride in seeing Bond's country featured, even if it is stuff they might see everyday on their way to work.

[hilly]

As a Brit, even one who doesn't live in London, I certainly felt a degree of parochial pride at seeing so many familiar sights in Skyfall. I remember Samantha Bond making a similar observation when she saw the TWINE boat chase for the first time. I love the exotic locations of the Bond films, but to see him in everyday places such as the Tube was a nice touch, especially in a year when London has figured so prominently

[BoogieBond]

I don't agree that Goldfinger is the most overrated. It came up with the Bond Formula first. Its very entertaining, and has so many good things going for it.

There are some good points about YOLT being overrated, its a bit of a OTT rehash of what has gone before, but as was said there's Japan and the Cinematography and Barry's music and Ken Adam's sets which are hard to beat. Most of the other films are rated where they should be.

[glidrose]

Goldfinger is so iconic and so sure of itself that it's bound to annoy the snooty, over-demanding fans. It's not perfect but it's easily one of the best films. And much better than the overrated, lazy and meandering FRWL.

[Skylla]

Casino Royale! I always get a headache when people say this is the best Bondfilm. I really like the PTS, the cardgame is nice (even though you can see that DC is no Poker player), the hand to hand combat is very good and Mads Mikkelsen is a good villain (nice torture scene maybe a bit overacted by Craig). On the other hand all three big action sets are really boring and Eva Green looks like a raccoon for half of the film. Hell, I take Connery standing around for an hour and oozing cool in Goldfinger over Craig running and chasing someone anytime.

[Turn]

Goldfinger is so iconic and so sure of itself that it's bound to annoy the snooty, over-demanding fans. It's not perfect but it's easily one of the best films. And much better than the overrated, lazy and meandering FRWL.

Rather harsh on FRWL. I don't see how any of those terms apply to it.

[FlemingBond]

i'm not sure i can think of an over rated Bond movie. some have been under rated. i don't think Goldfinger is overrated. it's a great movie imo.

[seawolfnyy]

Casino Royale! I always get a headache when people say this is the best Bondfilm. I really like the PTS, the cardgame is nice (even though you can see that DC is no Poker player), the hand to hand combat is very good and Mads Mikkelsen is a good villain (nice torture scene maybe a bit overacted by Craig). On the other hand all three big action sets are really boring and Eva Green looks like a raccoon for half of the film. Hell, I take Connery standing around for an hour and oozing cool in Goldfinger over Craig running and chasing someone anytime.

What? Eva Green looking like a raccoon? I...I just....what?

[tdalton]

 

Casino Royale! I always get a headache when people say this is the best Bondfilm. I really like the PTS, the cardgame is nice (even though you can see that DC is no Poker player), the hand to hand combat is very good and Mads Mikkelsen is a good villain (nice torture scene maybe a bit overacted by Craig). On the other hand all three big action sets are really boring and Eva Green looks like a raccoon for half of the film. Hell, I take Connery standing around for an hour and oozing cool in Goldfinger over Craig running and chasing someone anytime.

What? Eva Green looking like a raccoon? I...I just....what?

 

 

I think it's a reference to how much makeup they put around her eyes throughout the casino sequences of the film.  I think I'd have to agree that they went a bit overboard with her makeup in the film.  I thought she looked her best when they had the dinner jacket scene where Vesper was supposed to be in little to no makeup.

[seawolfnyy]

 

 

Casino Royale! I always get a headache when people say this is the best Bondfilm. I really like the PTS, the cardgame is nice (even though you can see that DC is no Poker player), the hand to hand combat is very good and Mads Mikkelsen is a good villain (nice torture scene maybe a bit overacted by Craig). On the other hand all three big action sets are really boring and Eva Green looks like a raccoon for half of the film. Hell, I take Connery standing around for an hour and oozing cool in Goldfinger over Craig running and chasing someone anytime.

What? Eva Green looking like a raccoon? I...I just....what?

 

 

I think it's a reference to how much makeup they put around her eyes throughout the casino sequences of the film.  I think I'd have to agree that they went a bit overboard with her makeup in the film.  I thought she looked her best when they had the dinner jacket scene where Vesper was supposed to be in little to no makeup.

 

Yea I gotcha. I do agree they seemed to overdue it at times. I thought she looked best when she was bending over Bond to resuscitate him.

[Trevelyan 006]

Dr No. Whilst we are all grateful that it exists, it is nevertheless rather corny, the music is melodramatic, it has aged badly ( you would think that it was made about 20years before FRWL), hammily acted in places ( You RATS!) and just a bit dull...

 

Convict this man!

 

Dr. No is one of my favorites out of Connery's outings...

[glidrose]

 

Goldfinger is so iconic and so sure of itself that it's bound to annoy the snooty, over-demanding fans. It's not perfect but it's easily one of the best films. And much better than the overrated, lazy and meandering FRWL.

Rather harsh on FRWL. I don't see how any of those terms apply to it.

 

 

Where do I begin? The gypsy camp sequence. Doesn't add to the plot one iota. Eliminate everything from Kerim's office getting bombed until Bond finds Tatiana in his suite and the story loses nothing. Except padding.

[Dustin]

Where do I begin? The gypsy camp sequence. Doesn't add to the plot one iota. Eliminate everything from Kerim's office getting bombed until Bond finds Tatiana in his suite and the story loses nothing. Except padding.

The gypsy camp serves in that it brings up the play-one-adversary-against-the-other theme of Spectre in that Grant actually guards Bond. And it helps in having a - tame - girl-wrestling scene and some 'exotic' gypsy backdrop courtesy of Pinewood studio. I'd argue that's at least responsible for a quarter of the film's allure.

[glidrose]

 

Where do I begin? The gypsy camp sequence. Doesn't add to the plot one iota. Eliminate everything from Kerim's office getting bombed until Bond finds Tatiana in his suite and the story loses nothing. Except padding.

The gypsy camp serves in that it brings up the play-one-adversary-against-the-other theme of Spectre in that Grant actually guards Bond. And it helps in having a - tame - girl-wrestling scene and some 'exotic' gypsy backdrop courtesy of Pinewood studio. I'd argue that's at least responsible for a quarter of the film's allure.

 

 

Fair enough... but it's still padding. Bond doesn't advance the action. And it is a good chunk of the film.

[Turn]

 

 

Where do I begin? The gypsy camp sequence. Doesn't add to the plot one iota. Eliminate everything from Kerim's office getting bombed until Bond finds Tatiana in his suite and the story loses nothing. Except padding.

The gypsy camp serves in that it brings up the play-one-adversary-against-the-other theme of Spectre in that Grant actually guards Bond. And it helps in having a - tame - girl-wrestling scene and some 'exotic' gypsy backdrop courtesy of Pinewood studio. I'd argue that's at least responsible for a quarter of the film's allure.

 

 

Fair enough... but it's still padding. Bond doesn't advance the action. And it is a good chunk of the film.

 

If you want to go by that type of criteria, I can find similar examples in Goldfinger.

 

-The entire precredits sequence has nothing to do with the plot, other than to get Bond conveniently to Miami. M could’ve easily just sent him there no matter where Bond was at the time.

 

-The golf game was in the novel, and established Bond meeting Goldfinger and Oddjob face to face. But it seems to go on forever. We’ve seen Goldfinger cheat at cards and know he’s smuggling gold. Do we need to see him cheat at golf numerous times to confirm he’s bad and Bond is clever?  Bond could have just gone to the club, found the Rolls, planted the homer and waited for Goldfinger to leave to track him.  

 

-Tilly Masterson’s presence did nothing for the story. In the novel she and Bond were captured together and figured later in the story after it was established she was seeking revenge for Jill. Here, Bond shows poor judgment by pursuing her in the first place for no other reason than he fancies her, and could have potentially killed her in the process. It sort of serves just to show one of the Aston Martin’s cool gadgets. Besides that, how did she know where in Switzerland Goldfinger would be? Did she also plant a homer? Bond could have gotten himself captured while spying on Auric Enterprises, it was just more convenient to have her be the cause. Also add in he basically allows her to run, which leads to her death.

 

-Many fans have pointed to the hoods convention as a story flaw. Goldfinger could easily have just called Bond to the room to brag about his plot and show off his cool gadgets. I always thought it was stupid of Goldfinger to murder these leading crime bosses and think there would be no retribution, even if his plot had succeeded.

 

-The flying circus sequence where they spray the gas also seems padded. They could easily have just shown the planes take off and begin spraying then cut to motionless troops, rather than the many awkward and poorly timed shots of the soldiers falling.

 

I like Goldfinger, but feel it too often gets more of a free pass based more on its iconic status. FRWL has a Cold War feel, more exotic locations and much more tension and suspense.

[Taro Todoroki]

After seeing Skyfall last week I think we have a winner. I do not see the film's attraction to so many. 

[tdalton]

After seeing Skyfall last week I think we have a winner. I do not see the film's attraction to so many. 

 

Couldn't agree with you more.